Short Summary
Innolux has filed an IPR petition challenging the validity of 12 claims of U.S. Patent 7,233,305 covering gamma‑correction ICs for LCDs, asserting obviousness over multiple prior‑art references and arguing that earlier procedural deficiencies have been remedied.
Detailed Summary
In this petition for inter partes review, Innolux Corporation challenges claims 1‑5 and 8‑14 of U.S. Patent 7,233,305, which claim integrated circuits that generate gamma reference voltages for LCD displays. The petitioner contends that the claims are obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103 in view of a combination of prior‑art references—Nakata, Petropoulos, Tsai, and Yamazaki—each teaching key claim limitations such as non‑volatile storage cells, multiplexed programming circuits, and bank switching. The petition also addresses deficiencies identified in a prior denied IPR, providing claim constructions and new prior‑art citations, and argues that the Board should not deny institution under §§ 325(d) and 314(a). The request is for the Board to institute the IPR and find all challenged claims unpatentable.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Innolux Corporation vs Phenix Longhorn LLC is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Google LLCvsKove IO, Inc.
Google and Kove IO settled their IPR dispute over U.S. Patent 7,814,170. The Board granted a joint motion to terminate the proceeding before institution, keeping the settlement confidential.
EP Family Corp.vsOffice Kick Inc.
EP Family Corp. and Office Kick Inc. filed a joint motion to terminate IPR2025-00471 concerning patent 11,849,843. The parties indicate they have settled, seeking dismissal of the proceeding.
Amazon.com Services LLCvsSmart Speaker LLC
A USPTO notice details institution decisions for several IPRs, leaving the status of Amazon’s challenge to Smart Speaker’s patent unresolved.
Uber Technologies, Inc. et al.vsCarma Technology, Ltd. et al.
Uber has filed an IPR petition challenging Carma’s ’456 patent covering shared transport systems. The petition asserts obviousness over O’Sullivan and Olmi references and argues lack of written‑description support. Uber seeks institution of the IPR.
LG Electronics, Inc. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 8,736,729, leading the PTAB to dismiss the IPR before it was instituted.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.